Scott Wolter has recieved word of some long lost research
materials on the KRS!! He, David Brody, and the discoverer will discuss the
importance of this
material.

The previous
investigator, Dr. Rodney Beecher Harvey, collected extensive research materials
surrounding KRS. He spent some twenty years on the subject and the entire
collection, some in very delicate and threatened condition, has been relocated.
Dr. harvey was a plant physiologist and his findings regarding the "leeching" of
the tree roots are of vast importance to the question of authenticity.
Additionally, he made micrographs of each character on the stone, substantiating
that the characters are as they appeared at the time he photographed
them.

What does this all mean?
Tune in this Thursday at 9 PM Eastern, 8 Central to hear Scott, David, and
Jennifer explain.

What
I did NOT say about Koppang's article (in Ancient
Waterways Society, ed.), and
was actually the trigger for me writing, was that, with all the good he did by
compiling all those sources, he then diverted from solid research (IMO) and
digressed over to an almost exclusively "sold" presentation, arguing only from
his one position, before he had completely finished presenting his
arguments. He should have shown (again IMO, because he seems to have the
info at his disposal) more strongly that the likelihood of the diffusion was
impossible (which I think is true, too). Yes, he stated that, but then he
takes off on it prematurely. like it had really been established by his prior
arguments. If he thought that, I would disagree; it was not established
adequately - even though he is right, IMO.

Before he was done, he sounded
like a New Ager. I am an old New Ager, and I know that that approach
loses. He could take a lesson from Michael Cremo. Solid work and
solid, no quantum leap, logic and conclusions are what will make all "our" work
worthwhile and win in the end. The world simply is
NOT the way science and history now present it; it should
not be allowed to continue to exist and distort our true history and our true
reality.

Still, I do not want to rain on Koppang's parade. I
learned a LOT from his article, and am glad to have read it. But some who
might see value in it will be completely alienated by his New Age
references. By that, I mean academic types.

I am convinced
that the "New Scientists", and "New Historians", otherwise known as alternative
researchers - in time - will not need academic types. The academics have
their Royal Society and their AAAS. The Royal Society, at least, was begun
with the intent of requiring empirical proof of all 'science' presented.
Within a generation, however, it swerved toward internecine politics, where it
resides to this day, IMHO. The AAAS is a good old boy network, an
exclusionary club.

New Scientists need to get to the roots of the
early Royal Society. Archaeology, history and science are now entrenched
paradigm-toeing establishments, and all three fields are based on past
misperceptions and dead ends - that they are simply too blindered to get out of,
not without help, at least. New Scientists, however, do need to have
standards of their/our own, just as the Royal Society started out with.
Why did the Royal Society see the need for empirical proof? To battle the
Church, which used dogma fundamentally, and persuasion when necessary. The
RS needed to establish itself with different principles.

In that same
manner, New Scientists need to also establish itself with different
principles. We all are convinced by the persuasion and presentations of
our New Scientist researchers, because we can agree with their points about the
inadequacies in establishment history and science and archaeology. In
other words, the establishment has only convinced us that there is something
more out there than the Nova side of things and the general pap-for-the-masses
shows on The History Channel, with their endless repetition of establishment
dogmas. We all know that the anomalous bits out there have to be included
in scientific theories, not swept under the carpet. If 'Science' and
'History' won't address those gaps, we (or our researchers) will.

But in the process of doing so, standards much, much higher than Eric
Von Daniken and Charles Berlitz used have to be applied. David Hatcher
Childress, for all his strengths, follows more along the lines of Von Daniken
and Berlitz, and that is okay for attracting people to our side. But there
has to be deeper, more exacting scholarship than David does (his lack of indexes
and, sometimes, footnotes, for example, to his published books drives me
crazy, and he knows it). People have to be able to find passages and
sources.

But that is just part of it.

New Scientists and
New Historians also need to present for more than just the occasional
dabbler. There need to be standards, maybe even peer review - though peer
review is so abused in Science as to be defacto book burning. A search, at
least some thought, needs to be done to find a way of filtering out the
silliness from the serious, the gullible from the open minded. Koppang has
a mix of silliness and seriousness; the silliness drags down the seriousness,
making the article ripe for book burning.

I brought up to David the need
for an Alternative Researcher Royal Society, and I got no response from him,
really. I don't have any status as a researcher, but I am quite well read
and hold up with researchers quite well at David's conferences. (I can
contribute points of view and devil's advocacy, but am not capable of focusing
enough to be a researcher in my own right. I envy those who can do that,
but am not willing to give up my jack-of-all-trades life to focus on one
area. If I didn't have to pay bills, it might be different; then I could
have 4 or 5 projects going at one time. But I do have another life, and I
have to work within my reality.)

So, I read articles and books and can
discern bull**** from solid work, sometimes mixed all together in one
work. Koppang is a mixture, with some real value and some real
fluff. All I myself do is opine. At least he is out there finding
things out and bringing them to fruition, for all of us to opine about.
So, I am down the pecking order from him. But it doesn't stop me from
commenting, does it?
LOL

Steve

******************

I'll respond to Steve's
comments in next week's edition.

And you can, too!! All
op/ed and letters to the editor will be published (editorial rights
reserved for language -- see above)

Alaskan tribes to receive prehistoric remains- 2 days agoHuman
remains estimated to be more than 10,000 years old that were found in a cave in
the Tongass National Forest (USA) rightfully belong to the southeast Alaska
Tlingit tribes,...

Stuart Mason was the scheduled guest, but due to confusion over time
zones, he didn't make the interview. We'll catch up with Stuart at a later date.
Stuart is the founder of The Antiquarian Society. The hour consisted of my and
William's ad lib, mostly about the AAAPF / THOR conference, pyramid theories,
Wm's study of Ky sundials, and how poorly Skype performed for your
host.